Well, not on the same level of course, but the point was just because my kids hadn't heard of those two, their response might be the same as yours. Who cares. I'm saying when you learn what Alynski was about, and you find that people really admired him, it says something. Just because he wasn't as "big" as Hitler and just because YOU don't know who he is doesn't take away from the point of this.

I'll let you have your fantasy that your're making some kind of misunderstood point that's over my head when you compare Hitler and Stalin, two unapologetic murderers of millions, to a guy who wrote a book. It's not a point worth arguing.

I'll let you have your fantasy that your're making some kind of misunderstood point that's over my head when you compare Hitler and Stalin, two unapologetic murderers of millions, to a guy who wrote a book. It's not a point worth arguing.

I was not comparing them apples to apples. It was a poorly drawn analogy, admittedly, but an analogy nonetheless. I was trying to illustrate the concept that even if someone hasn't heard of someone, it doesn't mean that person was insignificant. It seems that you base the importance of Alinsky to his "notariety" rather than what his philosophy was and who subscribes to that philosophy.

This is why I hate arguing on this board. People seize on non-substantive shit to win an argument, rather than to just think about the intended meaning.

__________________
We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse... Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

I was not comparing them apples to apples. It was a poorly drawn analogy, admittedly, but an analogy nonetheless. I was trying to illustrate the concept that even if someone hasn't heard of someone, it doesn't mean that person was insignificant. It seems that you base the importance of Alinsky to his "notariety" rather than what his philosophy was and who subscribes to that philosophy.

This is why I hate arguing on this board. People seize on non-substantive shit to win an argument, rather than to just think about the intended meaning.

I agree with you in terms of your original point. But you did directly compare the substantive worth of Alinsky with a KKK Grand Knight.

I was not comparing them apples to apples. It was a poorly drawn analogy, admittedly, but an analogy nonetheless. I was trying to illustrate the concept that even if someone hasn't heard of someone, it doesn't mean that person was insignificant. It seems that you base the importance of Alinsky to his "notariety" rather than what his philosophy was and who subscribes to that philosophy.

This is why I hate arguing on this board. People seize on non-substantive shit to win an argument, rather than to just think about the intended meaning.

You should hate arguing on this board, because you aren't very good at it. The reason you used Hitler and Stalin is because you couldn't think of an actual analogous right wing equivalent.

I don't care about winning an argument, but don't try to tell me that throwing Hitler and Stalin into your argument is non-substantive. You probably thought it was pretty stupid when liberals were doing it with Bush.

You should hate arguing on this board, because you aren't very good at it. The reason you used Hitler and Stalin is because you couldn't think of an actual analogous right wing equivalent.

I don't care about winning an argument, but don't try to tell me that throwing Hitler and Stalin into your argument is non-substantive. You probably thought it was pretty stupid when liberals were doing it with Bush.

You don't argue on the board, wtf? You just issue guttural statements.